Guy Randy White Horse appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sexual-abuse conviction. Having received a certificate of appealability from the district court, he raises issues related to ineffective assistance of counsel and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
Upon de novo review, we conclude that White Horse’s ineffective-assistance claim fails because it is not reasonably probable that, but for his counsel’s alleged errors, the result of his criminal proceedings would have been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-94, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (ineffective-assistance claim requires showing that (1) counsel’s performance was objectively deficient and (2) deficient performance prejudiced defense, meaning there is “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different”); Bear Stops v. United States, 339 F.3d 777, 779 (8th Cir.2003) (district court’s denial of § 2255 relief is reviewed de novo). We further conclude that White Horse’s Booker claim is unavailing. See Never Misses A Shot v. United States, 413 F.3d 781, 783-84 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (rule announced in Booker does not *611apply to final criminal judgments on collateral review).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.